Here’s a little chart that might help to explain the significance of what happened Monday night. It breaks down every election since 1867 according to whether the winning party carried a majority (50% plus 1) of the seats in each region, as indicated by their party colours (white indicates no party won a majority ): The numbers show how many seats the winning party nationally obtained in each region. The years with shaded bars on them denote minority Parliaments.

Only very rarely – three times under Macdonald, twice under King, and once each for Diefenbaker and Mulroney – has a party carried all four regions. Usually majorities are won with majorities in two regions, sometimes three, with a smattering of seats elsewhere. Very occasionally – Borden in 1911, Chretien in 1997 – it’s been done with just one: Ontario.

No party has ever won a majority without carrying at least one of Ontario and Quebec. Before Chretien, only three majorities were won without Quebec (1891, 1911, and 1930). After Laurier, only King (1921, 1945) and Mulroney (1988) have won majorities without Ontario. Before Harper, Atlantic Canada voted with the majority in every election but five: 1896, 1911, 1968, 1988, and 1997.

I’ll be going into this in my piece in tomorrow’s Maclean’s, but for now you can see how the winning power blocks have evolved. In the early years of the Liberals post-Macdonald dominance, after Laurier took Quebec for the first time in 1891, their majorities were essentially based on Quebec and Atlantic Canada, with growing help from the West. Conservatives won with Ontario and Atlantic Canada under Bennett and Meighen.

The next watershed year is 1935, when King carried Ontario for the Liberals for the first time in 60 years. For the next 45 years, Liberal dominance was assured: win a majority of the seats in Quebec all of the time, and Ontario most of the time, and you will win a lot of majorities. In 22 elections from 1935 to 2006, the Liberals carried Ontario 15 times; on four other occasions, it gave the Liberals enough seats either to sustain the Liberals in power, or to hold the Conservatives to a minority. Looked at another way: before 1935, the Tories won 9 majorities. After, only 3: Harper is the fourth.

But over time the forces of opposition to Liberal rule began to amass. The West, which for many years after Laurier split its vote among a number of parties, was united under the Conservative banner by Diefenbaker in 1958. Conservative parties, whether in their Progressive Conservative, Reform, Canadian Alliance, or reunited Conservative guises, have dominated the region ever since. Indeed, the last time the Liberals carried the West was in 1949.

Worse was the loss of Quebec in 1984. It proved possible, just, for the Liberals to carry on winning majorities under Chretien largely by sweeping Ontario, with help from Atlantic Canada and whatever seats the Bloc left on the table in Quebec. But they were increasingly running on fumes.

And yet, as solid as the Tory lock was on Western Canada, they, too, could not win a majority so long as they were unable to carry any other part of the country, as they have been unable to since 1988.

But now all that has changed, with the addition of Ontario to the Tory column. This is an altogether new majority coalition: the West and Ontario, and only them, for the most part. Before Monday night, there had been only two majorities in Canadian history that did not include majorities in Quebec or Atlantic Canada: Borden in 1911, and Chretien in 1997. But both of those were essentially Ontario operations. This is the first to rely equally on Ontario and the West.

The Diefenbaker and Mulroney sweeps included both regions, of course. But because they were so broadly based, with such divergent interests and values, and because they flared up so quickly, they proved unwieldy and unstable. A nearer example is Clark in 1979. Yet even though he carried two-thirds of the seats west of Quebec, plus a majority of Atlantic Canada, Clark did not have enough for a majority. Today, that would be enough.

So the West is very much in. This is the first majority government, and only the third of any kind in our history, in which the West has more seats in the governing caucus than Quebec and Atlantic Canada combined. The Ontario half of the partnership, moreover, far from the hasty marriage of opposites that undid Diefenbaker and Mulroney, has been built slowly, over several elections, and on a coherent ideological base. These are, after all, historically the most prosperous parts of the country, the ones most likely to be attuned to a tax-cutting, growth-oriented agenda. Just possibly, this could prove to be a lasting combination.

Of course, the Tories can’t expect to take three-quarters of the seats west of Quebec every election. But even if they take no more than about 60-65% — typically, that means 40-45% of the popular vote, rather than the nearly 50% they won this time — it gives them a base from which to reach out to Quebec and Atlantic Canada. They don’t have to make the kind of extravagant pass that Mulroney made at Quebec: it would be enough to take 20 seats or so, plus 10 or 15 in Atlantic Canada to secure a majority most years— especially with the coming addition of 30-odd seats in Ontario and the West (which would still leave them under-represented). Win two-thirds of the seats west of Quebec, and you’ll win a lot of majorities.

But you'll have to source leaders doing that.because I've never heard it.

OriginalEmily1 on May 4, 2011 at 6:31 pm

Anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time would know that many of the CPC supporters here were prolific in calling Torontonians all kinds of names and Quebecers corrupt. I suppose their attitude may change towards the Torontonians.

BCer in Mtl on May 4, 2011 at 10:05 pm

Do Torontonians like Torontonians? I don't think ragging on Toronto is limited to CPC supporters. And I do believe they stuck to calling the Quebec government corrupt for the most part, not Quebecers.

xiv on May 4, 2011 at 10:25 pm

If the NDP can consolidate its gains in Quebec, that could provide a solid base to establish itself as the predominant progressive party in Ontario, where a majority of voters did not vote Conservative. (The NDP is already the main alternative to the Conservatives west of Ontario.)

Wouldn't that be something… An NDP majority! My, how the politics of Canada have changed so quickly in the span of about a month.

It's almost like this election performed CPR for Canadian politics and there's "new life" in it. With the BQ down to 4 seats, I wonder if they "fold" as a party and are absorbed into the nether? Do the Liberals re-brand themselves and come back or do they look to merge with the NDP?

Assuming the NDP does not implode (yeah, a huge assumption), I would also think that the Liberal vote in the West would simply collapse (even more). They have not been major players in the West for 30+ years, but their nationwide collapse may finally be enough for their remaining voters in the west to just vote NDP (sure, some will go to the Conservatives, but since the Conservatives dominate, I assume most have already decided ABC).

As for Ontario, I wouldn't assume that the 2011 election results are indicative of the future. Sure, it shows what the Conservatives *can* do in Ontario, but not necessarily what they *will* do. True, some Lib voters will probably bleed to the Conservatives rather than NDP, but it's not going to be enough to save a lot of the GTA seats won via vote splitting.

All of which is to say that maybe the Conservatives continue to win a majority of seats in the West and even Ontario, but those majorities won't deliver the same number of seats.

This all makes a lot of sense. I just hope we don't get Vancouver getting worse still and spreading nation-wide, with latté drinking stay at home Moms driving their Escalades past dead junkies in front of a boarded up insite, telling her kids, don't look.

I fear that the inequity that has grown in my home province under the Liberals, who are unchecked by a thoroughly discredited NDP, will spread. And that inequity isn't good for the mom, her kids, or the dead junkies.

Interesting. One error: St. Laurent won the 1949 election, not King, and therefore he should get the credit for winning all four regions. I'd like to point out that Diefenbaker didn't lose Ontario in 1962 because of West/Quebec tensions. (Nor did Mulroney lose Ontario in 1988 for that reason, though the division obviously led to them losing everything in Ontario in 1993).

The numbers are how much the government won in that region, while the colour represents the dominant party in the region. The conservatives won 6 seats in Quebec this election, but the NDP orange carried the province.

Greg Lyle, at Innovative Research Group did an interesting article on this today – makes sense. If Harper can woo Atlantic Canada with ship building and follow through with the promise to back NL lower Churchill plans – who knows.

Canada's new electoral divide: It's about the money

The newly drawn electoral map is split, but the cleavage is not left versus right, nor is it Quebec versus the rest of Canada.

An interesting observation, too bad it'sbollocks. Harper's focus on naval capital spending and NL hydro development didn't pay him any dividends. Newfoundlanders went their own contrarian way on Monday (they also voted against Trudeaumania in '68) and the four seats the Tories have in NS have been in the Tory fold almost constantly since John Diefenbaker was overheard whispering to a colleague "Did Howe really say what's a million?"

Tory strength in Atlantic Canada resides in NB, which has neither a shipbuilding industry (any longer) nor any benefit from Danny's mad dream on the Lower Churchill. What New Brunswick does have have is recent experience with a Liberal government that had all the answers and no reason to listen to voters. It also had an addiction to overspending, running the deficit up by 50% in four years.

The secret of success for Stephen Harper in Atlantic Canada is to be the polar opposite of Dexter, Graham and Ghiz on any issue. The votes will follow from there.

I would agree that this current Conservative coalition looks more stable than Mulroney's but at the same time it also looks pretty marginal. This was a pretty narrow majority and the Conservatives basically maxed out everywhere except Quebec. The victories in Toronto and Winnipeg seemed like an historic high water mark. I don't think it will be easy to replicate that in the future. Saskatchewan is also a looming question mark. Those rurban ridings have really helped the Conservatives these past few elections. They will not remain forever; in fact, I doubt they will survive the results of the 2011 census. Between 2001 and 2006 Saskatchewan lost a great deal of people, a trend that has since reversed, while Saskatoon and Regina gained a not insignificant number of people. Had Saskatoon and Regina each had three seats instead of four, there could easily have been 8 Conservatives, 5 New Democrats, and 1 Liberal sent to Ottawa this election.

Really this majority was built on some pretty marginal showings. If the Conservatives cannot broaden their appeal, I would not bet on repeats.

A political party that isn't growing is dying, for sure. There is going to be attrition of seats before the next election, especially the ones won because we were lucky. To hold on to even a smaller majority they are going to have to make gains somewhere else.

Which means all of us have to get on our knees for Quebec again, damn it all. I don't mind Quebec screwing us, but I wish we were on top once and awhile.

In Toronto. It's really doubtful they'll hold all of their seats in Toronto proper, especially after a decade of Harper in power. Things start to stick to anybody after that length of time. There is still a potent Liberal machine in this city.

I've been around for less than 1/3 of the period you cover. I doubt I would recognize the Canada today from my childhood. Lots of things have changed – for a number of reasons- so I'm not sure how valid this analysis is – but it does tell an interesting historical story, nonetheless.

And here I thought that it was going to be an article about Jack and Olivia. It might be in tomorrow's article, but what is missing to give the analysis more context is the relative weight of each region in the House of Commons.
In 1873, with a 6-province and 2-territory federation, the House of Commons had 206 seats distributed as follows: the Atlantic provinces sans Newfoundland: 21%; Québec: 32%; Ontario: 43%; West and North: 5%. The Atlantic provinces and Québec could gang up on Ontario and the West and win every time. But they didn't.
In 1907, two years after the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan from most of the North West Territories, the number of seats increased to 212 distributed as follows: Atlantic provinces: 16%; Québec: 29%; Ontario: 39%; Western provinces and North: 16%. Ontario and Québec could gang up and beat the Atlantic provinces and the West hands down. Which they did most of the time! A manufacturing sector protected by high tariffs trumps natural resources.
By 1907, the Western provinces and the North had the same importance in terms of seat count as the Atlantic provinces. Seven years later, 1914, the number of seats is increased, with Atlantic provinces: 13%; Québec: 28%; Ontario 35%; West and North: 24%. Here things get a bit more complicated. Hard for only two, unless it's Ontario and Québec, to gang up and control all the others. Which they continued to do.
The trend of increasing number of seats in Western Canada continues throughout the 20th century. At the beginning of the 21th, in 2003, the number of seats increased to 308, with the Atlantic provinces at 10%; Québec at 24%; Ontario at 34%; and West and North at 31%. If you lump the Atlantic provinces with Québec (just for the sake of argument and not to start an argument), you almost have an even 3 way split. It takes two, any two, to govern. “Two-thirds of the seats west of Quebec, and they'll win every time.” you say. Yes but, two-thirds of the seats east of Manitoba, and someone other than the Conservatives could win. Two-thirds of all the provinces except Ontario, and someone could win. Regional coalitions anyone?

The "culture of lying" belongs to the post-Enlightenment, which has been the case since World War I shattered the dreams of universal reason. Mythologising narratives have displaced reasoned discourse. You can't regulate it by an Act of "Truth in Politics". It would be better to refer to it as "the culture of untruthfulness" rather than "the culture of lying". For all sorts of reasons, these are not synonymous. It is simply one of the symptoms of Nietzsche's forecast for "two centuries of nihilism" and the decadence of the Modern Era — all higher values devalue themselves.

We can't cure the culture of lying by regulating it. We will have to live through it and endure it… to the apocalyptic bitter end (it's what the word "apocalypse" means, the "shattering" truth disclosed once more — and the greater the depth of narcissistic delusion, the more shattering the truth when it does re-emerge.

The colours on Coyne's map are deceiving. The Harper conservative coalition in the West owes far more to the Reform/Alliance legacy of the modern Conservative party than the old PC Party. Ontario is — at best for PCs — a wash between the Reform Alliance and 'old Tory' legacies.

The old Red Tory Mulroney/Clark coalition was, and is, broke, rudderless and discredited. It has not existed since 1993. While Stephen Harper has masterfully expropriated the best parts of the PC brand and discarded much of Preston Manning's idealistic populism, the fact remains that the roots of the new Conservative coalition were born in 1993.

This is a worthwhile lesson for Liberals every bit as big as the merger/non merger debate. Sometimes you have to push Humpty Dumpty off the wall before you put him back together again.

Two points: first, we are about to have a redistribution of seats which will see BC, Alberta and Ontario gain seats while the rest of the country stays much the same.

Second, just as Jason Kenny was "tasked" with ethnic outreach, it is a pretty fair bet that the CPC is going to target 20-30 ridings in Quebec. Roads will be paved, popular mayors will be courted, community centers and sports pavilions built. The CPC does not have to win Quebec out right, rather it needs to grow in Quebec.

If you had said ten years ago that 2/3 of Cantonese speakers in Canada would vote CPC you would have been laughed out of the room. Kenny sold the goods. His counterpart in Quebec has four years and a majority government to sell 20 ridings on why that teenage MP thing is not leading to a happy ending.

After the 2011 census, the redistribution of HoC seats will add 30 seats to Ontario, Alberta, and BC for a total of 338 given those provinces growth in population. That starts to change the balance of power.

i think there's more to it than that no? New Brunswick as far as I can tell seems culturally Conservative to its bones even as it alternates lib-tory provincially. I remember all those Confederation of Regions people back in the day.. I'm curious to hear cultural explanations from Maritimers as to why it's so different from PEI and NS (Halifax increasingly seems to vote like inner Toronto). Is it just New Brunswick's small town/no big city feel? Protestantism? retro United Empire Loyalist culture that NB used to share with old Ontario, a quite different political culture from Nova Scotia's Joseph Howe tendency?

the national media pays barely any attention to the Atlantic, so it's hard to figure out what goes on there for those of use outside the region. The whole "culture of defeat" thing never lasted and meanwhile Halifax becomes Vancouver East, this lefty lifestyle bastion… or something.

the prairies are an interesting case, but ultimately there are not enough seats there to make a difference. This victory was won in Toronto, and only half the Toronto wins were because of vote splits. The rest of the Tories' considerable vote gains were driven by ethnic outreach and anti-NDP sentiment.
as for Saskatchewan and Winnipeg population gains .. is there any chance these new voters are NDPers? migrants to Sask taking part in the great resource boom don't seem like a terribly socialist friendly electorate.
Winnipeg ridings like Transcona see the old Blaikie blue collar vote shrink every year and see new suburbia houses built in that empty zone east of lagimodiere .. that's why the Tories edged that riding out at last..
Ball is in Harper's court – if he doesn't alienate this new 3% of the electorate he won over, he shouldn't lose them

But Ontario and Alberta actually have (and always have had) opposing economic interests, so if we are going to govern the country only based on short-term economics, (which is a pretty dicey boring and unsustainable proposition), we need to acknowledge that the "have" province, Alberta, has interests directly opposed to Ontario's. The major reason for the east west divide was always that Ontario was a manufacturing core, and the west provided raw materials. That hasn't changed, but the price of oil has. And will be going up. Everytime it goes up, Ontario bleeds. Everytime we sign a trade deal, Ontario bleeds. And as far as i can see Ontario hasn't recovered at all from the loss of manufacturing jobs last couple of years.

The most interesting outcome here is that the "right of centre" liberals might just jump ship at the suggestion of a merger between the liberals and the NDP. Also, if the conservatives continue to show strength, the natural movement will be for the conservative to state "his/her" blue orientation more readily i.e. be accepted as politically correct. This is at least 1/3 of the existing liberal strength.

The reason that Layton did so well in Quebec was because Quebeckers will vote for the devil before voting for a Westerner. Give me a break , Layton as a native son ? why was he in Toronto ? I was a Quebec native for the first 25 yrs. of my life, left because of the corruption. The NDP will have to learn all their tricks. (The exception to the westerner was Diefenbaker who ran against Pierson who was from Ontario ).

Thanks for making the St-Laurent thing right. He was an underrated PM who presided over a period of great economic expansion and social improvement all while avoiding welfare state excesses. I was born during his time in office. Since then IMO we've had only two competent and ethical Prime Ministers — St. Laurent and Harper.

And you are "ORIGINAL" Emily are you? Time to change your name methinks; not just because you plagiarize, but because you have posted so many inane, angry comments and your credibility is now in tatters regarding those and future posts. Oh well, we will recognize your baseless elitist and phony intellectual snobbery under any name you choose.

What's striking to me in the chart is the same thing that struck me in 2006:

Harper won government in 2006 but the only region to give him a majority of seats was the West. That seems more novel than the Ontario+West coalition in 2011, and is a function of the relative gain in strength of the West since Confederation. That gain in the West was retarded by the seat allocation rigging under Trudeau and Mulroney that C-12 would partially correct after the next census.

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Sign In / Sign Up

With your existing account from

With an email account

Commenters who signed up before June 26th, 2014 will have to reregister on our new, social-friendly login system. The good news? The process should only take a few minutes, and you're welcome to use the same email address.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.